The sign of the passive is a 
prefixed to the verb, which requires often to be compensated by a dagesh, because never do two signs (characteristics) attach to a verb. Therefore their forms of infinitive are 
, and 
. The 
in the two which have a 
is compensated by a dagesh. Of the two first the forms are produced in this manner.
Although in the Scriptures the infinitive 
does not occur, nevertheless it is certain from what was said above that the formulas of all modes express the infinitive when they are used as substantives which are of no gender; and truly there is no reason why this form of infinitive should less be able to express the past, than the form 
especially when it is possible to use both forms in the past tense, like 
and 
it is sealed.
Verbs which end in 
leave it off in the first and second person, compensating it with a dagesh. This will be observed in what follows: that not only the 
, but also where any other doubled letter occurs, the first should always have a quiescent sheva, like 
in place of 
For if this were not so (as was said in Chapter 3), then the sheva 
would have to be pronounced, when otherwise it always is silent. It should be observed that when the verb has the accent 
or 
, the last syllable, if it is long, remains and it is not changed to a sheva, as it otherwise should. I said if it is long, for were it a patach, it would be changed to a kametz; for example from the future 
when the paragogic 
is added it is 
I am visited. But if it has a pausal accent, the tsere is retained, becoming 
. But 
she is visited, with a similar accent does not retain the patach of the masculine 
but changes to a 
, becoming 
; on the other hand the cholem of the masculine 
, because it is long, remains, becoming 
This rule will be observed wherever verbs have a sheva mobile in the penultimate. I do not need to mention this constantly.
The imperative 
, because it occurs frequently in the Scriptures, is considered regular; but in the form of 
, etc., because it occurs only once in the Bible (namely, Joel chap. 4, vs. 11), is considered either as irregular, or completely neglected. I do not know whether they believed the purpose of the Scriptures to be the language rather than the teachings.
Finally, the future in this conjugation is augmented for the sake of elegance, as in the active verb, with the paragogic 
, like 
for 
I am honored; nor is it inelegant in the plural of the same to add a 
after the 
, like 
for 
they were cut off; which is being used also in the conjugations to follow.
1. [Here again, the term niph‘al is not used by Spinoza.]